RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER
draft-xie-mpls-rsvp-bier-extension-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Jingrong Xie , Mach Chen , Zhenbin Li | ||
Last updated | 2018-03-05 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xie-mpls-rsvp-bier-extension-00
Network Working Group J. Xie Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Expires: September 6, 2018 R. Li Huawei March 5, 2018 RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER draft-xie-mpls-rsvp-bier-extension-00 Abstract Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state by using a multicast-specific BIER header. This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the set up of Traffic Engineered (TE) point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with BIER infomation, which is called P2MP based BIER in [I-D.xie-bier-mvpn-mpls-p2mp]. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018. Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RSVP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Example of signaling the P2MP-BIER . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. PATH Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. RESV Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. SESSION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.1. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SESSION Object . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.2. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SESSION Object . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. SENDER_TEMPLATE Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5.1. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object . . . . 9 3.5.2. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object . . . . 9 3.6. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6.1. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv4 Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6.2. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv6 Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.7. FILTER_SPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.7.1. P2MP BIER_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.7.2. P2MP BIER_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Capability and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 1. Introduction Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state by using a multicast-specific BIER header. [RFC4875] defines extensions to the RSVP-TE protocol ([RFC3209] and [RFC3473] ) to support P2MP TE LSPs satisfying the set of requirements described in [RFC4461] . This document extends RSVP-TE to establish P2MP TE LSPs with BIER information, which is called P2MP based BIER in [I-D.xie-bier-mvpn-mpls-p2mp]. 2. Terminology Readers of this document are assumed to be familiar with the terminology and concepts of the documents listed as Normative References. For convenience, some of the more frequently used terms and new terms list below. o LSP: Label Switch Path o LSR: Label Switching Router o BFR: BIER Forwarding Router o BFR-ID: BIER Forwarding Router IDentify. o P2MP: Point to Multi-point o P2MP based BIER: BIER using P2MP as topology 3. RSVP Extensions RSVP Extensions to setup a P2MP-based BIER is very similar to the setup of a P2MP LSP described in [RFC4875]. Most of the structure and description are borrowed from RFC4875, and a precursive example is put in the beginning to give a whole picture of building the forwarding state of P2MP based BIER. 3.1. Example of signaling the P2MP-BIER Consider LSRs A - F, interconnected as follows: Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 ( A ) ------------ ( B ) ------------ ( C ) ------------ ( D ) (Root) \ \ 1 (0:0001) \ \ ( E ) ( F ) 3 (0:0100) 2 (0:0010) Figure 1: P2MP-based BIER Topology Say that the node D has a BFR-id 1, F has a BFR-id 2, and E has a BFR-id 3, and we use a Bit String Length 4. Consider an P2MP SESSION<P2MPID, TunnelID, ExtTunnelID=RootAddr>, for which A is the Root, and say that D,E,F are all the Leafs of this P2MP SESSION. There are 3 Sub-LSPs: A-->B-->E, A-->B-->C-->D, A-->B-->C-->F. PATH message: When PATH message walk through A-->B-->E, it include an session attribute that identify ths session is to establish a P2MP- based BIER LSP. The same to A-->B-->C-->D and A-->B-->C-->F. RESV message: When RESV message work throuth A<--B<--E, it include an Object that identify BFR-ID of E. The same to A<--B<--C<--D and A<--B<--C<--F. Procedure: B learns that it's downstream endpoint has a BFR-ID<3> after a RSVP message passes through A<--B<--E. B also learns a BFR- ID<1> after a RSVP message passes throuth A<--B<--C<--D, and a BFR- ID<2> after a RSVP message passes through A<--B<--C<--D. 3.2. PATH Message This section describes modifications made to the Path message format as specified in [RFC4875]. The Path message is enhanced to signal one or more S2L sub-LSPs with BIER information. This is done by including the S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor list in the Path message as shown below. Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ...] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ] <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <TIME_VALUES> [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ] <LABEL_REQUEST> [ <PROTECTION> ] [ <LABEL_SET> ... ] [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ] [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ] [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] <sender descriptor> [<S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor list>] <S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor list> ::= <S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor> [ <S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor list> ] <S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor> ::= <S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP> [ <P2MP SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ] Figure 2: PATH Message 3.3. RESV Message The Resv message follows the [RFC4875] format: Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 <Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ] <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <TIME_VALUES> [ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ] [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ] [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] <STYLE> <flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list> | <SE flow descriptor> <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor> | <FF flow descriptor list> <FF flow descriptor> <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <SE filter spec list> <SE filter spec list> ::= <SE filter spec> | <SE filter spec list> <SE filter spec> <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ] <SE filter spec> ::= <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ] <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ::= <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor> [ <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ] <S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor> ::= <S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP> [ <P2MP_SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE> ] Figure 3: RESV Message FILTER_SPEC is defined in below section. The S2L BIER sub-LSP flow descriptor has the same format as S2L BIER sub-LSP descriptor in previous section with the difference that a P2MP_SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE object is used in place of a P2MP SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. Note that a Resv message can signal multiple S2L BIER sub-LSPs that may belong to the same FILTER_SPEC object or different FILTER_SPEC Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 objects. The same label SHOULD be allocated if the <Sender Address, LSP-ID> fields of the FILTER_SPEC object are the same. However different labels MUST be allocated if the <Sender Address, LSP-ID> of the FILTER_SPEC object is different, as that implies that the FILTER_SPEC refers to a different P2MP BIER LSP. 3.4. SESSION Object A P2MP BIER LSP SESSION object is used. This object uses the existing SESSION C-Num. New C-Types are defined to accommodate a logical P2MP destination identifier of the P2MP BIER tunnel. This SESSION object has a similar structure as the existing point-to- multipoint RSVP-TE SESSION object. However the C-Types is different. All S2L BIER sub-LSPs that are part of the same P2MP BIER LSP share the same SESSION object. This SESSION object identifies the P2MP BIER tunnel. The combination of the SESSION object, the SENDER_TEMPLATE object and the S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP object identifies each S2L BIER sub-LSP. This follows the existing P2MP RSVP-TE notion of using the SESSION object for identifying a P2MP Tunnel, which in turn can contain multiple LSPs, each distinguished by a unique SENDER_TEMPLATE object. 3.4.1. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SESSION Object Class = SESSION, P2MP_BIER_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Reserve|BS Len |Set Identifier | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SESSION Object P2MP ID: A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP BIER tunnel. It encodes the P2MP Identifier that is unique within the scope of the ingress LSR. BS Len: A 4 bits field encoding the supported BitString length associated with this BFR-prefix. The values allowed in this field are specified in section 2 of [RFC8296]. Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 Set Identifier: A 8 bits fields encoding the Set Identifier (section 1 of [RFC8279]) Tunnel ID: A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP BIER tunnel. Extended Tunnel ID: A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP BIER tunnel. Ingress LSRs that wish to have a globally unique identifier for the P2MP BIER tunnel SHOULD place their tunnel sender address here. A combination of this address, P2MP ID, and Tunnel ID provides a globally unique identifier for the P2MP BIER tunnel. 3.4.2. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SESSION Object Class = SESSION, P2MP_BIER_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Reserve|BS Len |Set Identifier | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID (16 bytes) | | | | ....... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SESSION Object This is the same as the P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 LSP SESSION object with the difference that the extended tunnel ID may be set to a 16-byte identifier [RFC3209]. 3.5. SENDER_TEMPLATE Object The SENDER_TEMPLATE object contains the ingress LSR source address. The LSP ID can be changed to allow a sender to share resources with itself. Thus, multiple instances of the P2MP BIER tunnel can be created, each with a different LSP ID. The instances can share resources with each other. The S2L BIER sub-LSPs corresponding to a particular instance use the same LSP ID. The combination of the SESSION object, the SENDER_TEMPLATE object and the S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP object identifies each S2L BIER sub-LSP. This follows the existing P2MP RSVP-TE notion of using the SESSION object Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 for identifying a P2MP Tunnel, which in turn can contain multiple LSPs, each distinguished by a unique SENDER_TEMPLATE object. 3.5.1. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, P2MP_BIER_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 tunnel sender address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | LSP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Group Originator ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Sub-Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object IPv4 tunnel sender address See [RFC3209]. Sub-Group Originator ID The Sub-Group Originator ID is set to the TE Router ID of the LSR that originates the Path message. This is either the ingress LSR or an LSR which re-originates the Path message with its own Sub- Group Originator ID. Sub-Group ID An identifier of a Path message used to differentiate multiple Path messages that signal state for the same P2MP BIER LSP. This may be seen as identifying a group of one or more egress nodes targeted by this Path message. LSP ID See [RFC3209]. 3.5.2. P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, P2MP_BIER_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type = TBD Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | IPv6 tunnel sender address | + + | (16 bytes) | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | LSP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | Sub-Group Originator ID | + + | (16 bytes) | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Sub-Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object This is the same as the P2MP BIER Tunnel IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object with the difference that the sender address and Sub-Group Originator ID may be set to a 16-byte identifier [RFC3209]. 3.6. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP Object An S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP object identifies a particular S2L BIER sub-LSP belonging to the P2MP BIER LSP. 3.6.1. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv4 Object S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP Class = TBD, S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP_IPv4 C-Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 S2L BIER Sub-LSP destination address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFR-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv4 Object Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 IPv4 BIER Sub-LSP destination address IPv4 address of the S2L BIER sub-LSP destination. 3.6.2. S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv6 Object S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP Class = TBD, S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP_IPv6 C-Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 S2L BIER Sub-LSP destination address (16 bytes) | | .... | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BFR-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: S2L_BIER_SUB_LSP IPv6 Object This is the same as the S2L BIER IPv4 Sub-LSP object, with the difference that the destination address is a 16-byte IPv6 address. 3.7. FILTER_SPEC Object The FILTER_SPEC object is canonical to the P2MP BIER SENDER_TEMPLATE object. 3.7.1. P2MP BIER_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC Object Class = FILTER_SPEC, P2MP BIER LSP_IPv4 C-Type = TBD The format of the P2MP BIER_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is identical to the P2MP BIER_IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object. 3.7.2. P2MP BIER_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Object Class = FILTER_SPEC, P2MP BIER LSP_IPv6 C-Type = TBD The format of the P2MP BIER_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is identical to the P2MP BIER_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object. 4. Capability and Error Handling TBD. Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 5. IANA Considerations Allocation is expected from IANA for codepoints from the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" registry. 6. Security Considerations TBD 7. Acknowledgements TBD 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-bier-mvpn] Rosen, E., Sivakumar, M., Aldrin, S., Dolganow, A., and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using BIER", draft-ietf-bier- mvpn-10 (work in progress), February 2018. [I-D.xie-bier-mvpn-mpls-p2mp] Xie, J., "Multicast VPN Using MPLS P2MP and BIER", draft- xie-bier-mvpn-mpls-p2mp-00 (work in progress), October 2017. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to- Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, DOI 10.17487/RFC4461, April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4461>. Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for P2MP-based BIER March 2018 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>. [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>. [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>. 8.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. Authors' Addresses Jingrong Xie Huawei Technologies Q15 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com Mach Chen Huawei Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Robin Li Huawei Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Xie, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 13]